Here is the curve you are referring to (it includes monthly average composite aquisition costs for crude oil relative to C+C production).

Price Curve

It includes data up through September 2008 when the price (and production) had begun to fall back down the curve.

That's asymptotic.

That's peak oil.

Thank you.

FF

Is that US costs? Refinery acquisition costs? FUD?
If refinery acquisition costs, it tells us nothing, other than we were in a financial bubble, or rather, because we were in financial bubble, the true meaning of this graph is unknown.

(I sent you an email)

Thanks for the emails.

The cost values are the composite monthly refiner aquisition costs.

These are found at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_rac2_dcu_nus_m.htm

They are actual costs (not real, chained to a particular date or year). It really does not matter which cost data one uses from the various options the EIA uses...you get the same type of curve.

I could have just as easily run the data with the WTI spot market price average (one of the daily values I track) for each month compensated for delay and autocorrelation and I still would end up with the same general curve.

It is worth noting (since you can't see it explicitly in the data) that the "curve" is really an average of a curve path that shows hysteresis. That is more evident at lower production rates.

Trooper:
"a curve path that shows hysteresis"

What do you mean by hysteresis here? Is the way down different from the way up?

Yes, that is what hysteresis implies, as in certain electronic waveforms. This also comes up in thermodynamics, where a non-reversible cycle leads to losses as in an inefficient non-ideal Carnot engine.

As noted by WHT, yes, it's a different path down. It's not a huge difference but it appears when you plot the path rather than just the points.

It is a concept that has real life applications. Your home's thermostat and HVAC is an example of a control system that operates on the basis of hysteresis.

Is "asymptotic" the correct word to us to describe the situation? If you do use the term, then you are implying that there is a daily production rate that we cannot exceed. So that something like 1/(x-xmax) turns into a singularity at the x=xmax asymptote.

It is a correct concept. What it suggests is that the differential cost (or incremental cost) of that next barrel of oil becomes not only larger but possibly infinitely large when a limit is reached.

If the supply, or more accurately the rate of supply, were infinite then this uptick would be an anomaly.

There are several ways to look at it:

1) It's a (short-term) capacity issue...that if we really had the capacity to just add another 5, 10 or even 25 million BPD, the curve would not curve and instead we'd have a zer-slope or slight negative sloped line with scatter to it. What we really ran into, besides a financial bubble, was a place where all the spare capacity was "used up" and to the extent that fields and refinery were available, they were running "flat out." Given a couple of more years the real sustainable capacity will be significantly increased so that we do not run up against these limits in the future.

2) It's a short-term capacity issue created artificially. In other words, people would like to produce more and have the capacity to turn the valves much further open than they were/are. They refused to open the valves to drive the price to higher levels rather than flooding the market and causing the price to go down (dramatically) or increasing the flow so that the marginal/increment cost remained the same once a price point was reached.

3) This is the peak (geological) characteristic: as production flattens or declines, prices go up (and eventually and incrementally destroy demand). Too rapid a rise causes a widespread collapse and it may not allow a restart of the economy on the way back down (like an aircraft with insufficient thrust to overcome gravity, the climb will stall and then begin a fall. If you have enough time and distance, you might gain enough lift to regain controlled flight. If not, you "crater.").

Bill O'Grady of AG Edwards February, 2005

“It has been our argument that the market has run out of
excess capacity, and the reason prices have increased so
much this year is because we traveled up the vertical
portion of the supply curve……..It is important to note
that being in this portion of the supply curve cuts both
ways. When demand is rising, prices rise very high, very
fast. When demand declines, prices fall, very hard, very
fast.”/

THX

3) This is the peak (geological) characteristic: as production flattens or declines, prices go up (and eventually and incrementally destroy demand). Too rapid a rise causes a widespread collapse and it may not allow a restart of the economy on the way back down (like an aircraft with insufficient thrust to overcome gravity, the climb will stall and then begin a fall. If you have enough time and distance, you might gain enough lift to regain controlled flight. If not, you "crater.")

Interesting way of putting the situation!

You talk about not having enough lift to regain controlled flight. I wonder, with all of our debt related problems, if this is not a second impediment to rising again.

Now you know one reason why "entertainment" like the TV show "Survivor" might have been created and been so successful...to get people accustomed to the idea of whom might be "voted off" or tossed overboard to "lose weight" and regain controlled flight.

Of course, on the way down you can imagine you are in controlled flight whether you are or not. Its only the sudden stop at the end (and the crater that is formed) that is the problem.

If you have enough time and distance, you might gain enough lift to regain controlled flight. If not, you "crater."

Gaia like crater.

Very nice graph. I sent a copy to The Oil Drum staff, in case any miss your comment.

Lots of possibilities here. Factor in what Krugman had to say about such a curve regarding multiple equilibria that Khebab pointed out further below in the thread:

Just for fun, I created a quick plot of the number of bushels of corn required to purchase a barrel of oil (using the $/bushel cost) plotted against annual average oil production since 1960.

You can see the artificial peak of the oil embargoes of the 1970's in the data. But notice that on a commodity swap basis it is (in general) costing using more corn (equivalent) as the production flattens as we approach 75 million BPD of C+C.

Corn for Oil(2)

Of course, one othe things noted about the agricultural production is the yield (and the variation each year). Here is the amount of land area production required for a barrel of oil using the cost equivalent method above.

It's the number of acres of corn production required for a barrel of oil, considering both the yield and the respect price of corn and oil. The curve is slightly different indicating the effects of lower yields in the early years. However, the general characteristic is the same.

Acres for Oil

A picture is worth a thousand words!
G

Is that inflation adjusted?

Is there anywhere I could look at the raw data for it?

No, but this is:
(I don't go with fancy backgrounds, or non-zero scaled axes)

Not quite so impressive. The loops pre 1986 are the two OPEC oil shocks. The run-up after that remains pretty startling

Data from:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/fsheets/real_prices.xls
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/merquery/mer_data.asp?table=T11.01b

G.

Mine is more cool, because it has "The Wall" in it. ;o)

EIA data.

-best,

Wolf

I look at this graph and I see two completely different curves -- a hockey stick and a pointy football, and I think, what's going on?

Could it be that one curve is driven by the buyer's demand for oil, and the other curve is driven by the seller's demand for cash?

It remands me of the butterfly curve with the strange attractor, where a point goes round and round on much the same orbit, and then without warning flips onto a completely different orbit for a while, then flips back again.

The point is, these flips between orbits are completely random, although once the orbit is established it is fairly predictable.

Which makes me think -- betting on the oil price is a risky business. You can never guarantee if you are betting on orbit A that it won't switch to orbit B.

Inflation adjustment is shown in a post above this one. I would point out, though, that part of the effect we see is the fall of the dollar relative to other currencies and then its sudden rise. I will post those separately.

I would also point out that inflation adjusted data does not provide much insight into different periods of time that may refelct completely different social-economic conditions at both micro and macro conditions. The Raleigh of 1973 where in just going two miles from the campus I was in to rural/agricultural farmland is a thing of the past. And the OPEC oil embargo price shock of 1973, where gasoline prices at the local Starflite gas stations went from $0.199/gallon to $0.439/gallon (where you fed dollar bills into a vending machine type reader) does not necessarily reflect a "constant" expenditure percentage for our lives. What we saw this past summer(2008), in terms of cost cause and effect might be similar, yet other forces were at work then and now.

BTW, the background is the Delaware Bridge on the way to the NJ Turnpike.

The raw data I used is:

Refiners Aquisition Cost (composite) found at:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_rac2_dcu_nus_m.htm

The monthly production data are from the Monthly Energy Review, specifically Table 11b (Under International Petroluem) at:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/merquery/mer_data.asp?table=T11.01b

That's the "easy" data to retrieve. I'm working on (in my spare time) extracting the cost and production data even further back in as fine a resolution as we have here (that requires more time in the NCSU Library). The EIA has annual values available.

Here is the same data converted to € from 1994 to present.

Euro Oil Cost Scatter

The production data and the cost data all on one chart with $ and €.

IPM (10-2008)